I’m not saying supershoes don’t have an effect because they definitely do, but does anyone else think the claim in the article that they affect miles times by 3.5-4 seconds and 800 times by 1.5-2 absurd? So no one has run sub 3:32 since 2019? No one sub 1:44 since then too?
I think it depends on the runner. Something Ritz said that didn't make it into the article is that he doesn't think the shoes help the very best guys as much. Which is in line with what I've heard some other coaches say -- that athletes who already had great running mechanics may not get as much of a boost.
But Vig was giving a ballpark estimate, and I think 3.5-4 seconds for a college athlete is a sensible guess for how much the shoes help in a mile.
Sorry but this is disingenuous at best. Its a weak attempt at legitimizing the best guys as if it dint really impact their times by wearing shoes. Everyone gets a big boost from better shoes. There is no data to prove otherwise. Of course Ritz would be the one to say this.
Coaches with good athletes say the same thing when it comes to doping, it would only have impacted their best runners very slightly.
The biggest take away from your article was the fact that they could train harder and put in more hrs with a lot less wear and tear on their legs. That alone would make them faster.
Add to that the advantage of the tech in the shoes and you get these kinds of results.
Since 2019, the beginning of the super spikes, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran:
3x 3:28 and 2x 3:29
In the '80s, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran:
4x 3:29 and 1x 3:30
Since 2019, the beginning of the super spikes, the top-5 800 m athletes ran: 1x 1:41 and 2x 1:42 and 2x 1:43 In the '80s, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran: 2x 1:41 and 3x 1:42
However large the cumulative advancements were in the last 40 years (training/track/nutrition/shoes), they are still barely making up for the basically unlimited doping of the past at the top.
At the lower levels like NCAA, they do, either because those athletes don't dope or still don't have to limit their doping because of the weak testing.
Interesting article, thanks for writing. If you're able to take it a step further it would be interesting to look at the results across years with 6th or 5th+6th year seniors removed. I agree the shoes are the largest factor in the faster times, but would be interesting to know how much of an effect the extra 6th year seniors are also having.
For example just looking at the top 10 list for the men's mile:
- Brian Fay is 24 years old
- Kieran Lumb is 24 years old
- Thomas Vanoppen is 23 years old
- Aidan Ryan is a 6th year senior
- Duncan Hamilton is a 5th year senior
I use age in a couple examples above because the athletes are international and transferred to the US partway through college, so harder to track exact eligibility.
It would be interesting to build on this further to see what the comparison looks like removing those who wouldn't be competing without the extra COVID year(s).
There is something to Santana's point. We see a school with a whole bunch of once rare sub-4s. Then Gault or somebody writes an article in which it comes out that most of them started at the school at 22-24. I agree that comparing this year to the last few, but also to the next few, will tell a more meaningful story. How does this season stack up against 2024-26?
Since 2019, the beginning of the super spikes, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran:
3x 3:28 and 2x 3:29
In the '80s, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran:
4x 3:29 and 1x 3:30
Since 2019, the beginning of the super spikes, the top-5 800 m athletes ran: 1x 1:41 and 2x 1:42 and 2x 1:43 In the '80s, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran: 2x 1:41 and 3x 1:42
Let's add the ladies:
Since 2019, the beginning of the super spikes, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran: 1x 3:50, 1x 3:51 and 3x 3:54 In the '80s, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran: 1x 3:52, 1x 3:53, 1x 3:54 and 2x 3:56
Since 2019, the beginning of the super spikes, the top-5 800 m athletes ran: 1x 1:54, 2x 1:55, 2x 1:56 In the '80s, the top-5 1500 m athletes ran: 2x 1:53, 3x 1:54
Same tendency for men and women: the 1500 is better now since the super shoes than in the '80s, and the 800 is worse.
No world record in these middle distances since quite a while:
Last world record year: M 1500 m: 1998; M 800 m: 2012 W 1500 m: 2015; W 800 m: 1983
I’m not saying supershoes don’t have an effect because they definitely do, but does anyone else think the claim in the article that they affect miles times by 3.5-4 seconds and 800 times by 1.5-2 absurd? So no one has run sub 3:32 since 2019? No one sub 1:44 since then too?
3-4 seconds / mile for your typical NCAA runner is actually backed up by data. It's not impossible it's even a little more. I think the reason you don't see this at the top is the concept that the shoes impact the good-but-not-great athlete a lot more than the great athlete. That 3-4 seconds / mile is what it seems to be for the regional-qualifying level distance runner. I put this in another thread already, but it's really clear, so I'll re-post:
The impact on COVID 5th/6th years also plays a role at the top but is negligible when you go deeper. In 2019, there were 33 seniors, 34 juniors, 21 sophomores, and 11 freshmen in the top 100 5K times. The numbers were almost the same in 2022: 33 seniors, 32 juniors, 25 sophomores, and 10 freshmen. There were actually a few MORE freshmen and sophomores in 2022 in the top 100--they weren't being crowded out by 6th year seniors.
I didn't look up all the years for the other distance events, but here is the jump from 2019 to 2022 (2020 was shut down, and 2021 had limited travel).
1500m 2022: 3:42.11 2019: 3:45.62 (3.5 seconds)
10,000m 2022: 29:04.0 2019: 29:32.2 (28.2 seconds / 4.5 sec. per 1600m)
I’m not saying supershoes don’t have an effect because they definitely do, but does anyone else think the claim in the article that they affect miles times by 3.5-4 seconds and 800 times by 1.5-2 absurd? So no one has run sub 3:32 since 2019? No one sub 1:44 since then too?
3-4 seconds / mile for your typical NCAA runner is actually backed up by data. It's not impossible it's even a little more. I think the reason you don't see this at the top is the concept that the shoes impact the good-but-not-great athlete a lot more than the great athlete. That 3-4 seconds / mile is what it seems to be for the regional-qualifying level distance runner. I put this in another thread already, but it's really clear, so I'll re-post:
The impact on COVID 5th/6th years also plays a role at the top but is negligible when you go deeper. In 2019, there were 33 seniors, 34 juniors, 21 sophomores, and 11 freshmen in the top 100 5K times. The numbers were almost the same in 2022: 33 seniors, 32 juniors, 25 sophomores, and 10 freshmen. There were actually a few MORE freshmen and sophomores in 2022 in the top 100--they weren't being crowded out by 6th year seniors.
I didn't look up all the years for the other distance events, but here is the jump from 2019 to 2022 (2020 was shut down, and 2021 had limited travel).
1500m 2022: 3:42.11 2019: 3:45.62 (3.5 seconds)
10,000m 2022: 29:04.0 2019: 29:32.2 (28.2 seconds / 4.5 sec. per 1600m)
Swimming is seeing similar progress, and they lived through a technical regression. People get better. They'll continue to get better. Access to info and tooling has never been higher, the youth are more equipped than ever. USATF youth is severely underdeveloped to begin with, so there is A TON of room for this growth to continue.
It is what it is. If you're torn up about the shoes, get over it. You're just washed now.
Super shoes = better recovery = added training volume = faster times.
Certain indoor tracks = faster then outdoor tracks.
Toss all of that in a blender and add smarter training = faster times.
A perfect storm of improvements in the key ingredients that make for fast racing. No surprise a track like BU, which is faster than most outdoor tracks, is a source of so many fast times. It’s an anomaly among indoor tracks. But you have to add the advances in training programs, and athletes who come to college prepared better than ever both physically and mentally to run at a high level, to the mix. It’s a golden age of collegiate and pro racing, and we should be glad we are here to see it. The next advances we see may not be so ethical, fair, or self-evident.
"Everyone gets a big boost from better shoes. There is no data to prove otherwise."(quote)
There is no data to prove it. Improvements don't have to come from the shoes. Aside from boards like this, where is the consensus from those who have made a study of the effect of the shoes?
"3-4 seconds / mile for your typical NCAA runner is actually backed up by data. It's not impossible it's even a little more. I think the reason you don't see this at the top is the concept that the shoes impact the good-but-not-great athlete a lot more than the great athlete". (quote)
Why should the shoes help the not so good runners more than those who are better? What is the scientific explanation - as distinct from mere speculation - that supports that?